California College Admissions Analysis

Author

Lanbin Fan

Published

February 1, 2026

Introduction

This online report explores how college admissions selectivity relates to tuition and total cost among higher-education institutions in California. The goal is to provide a decision-maker-friendly view of accessibility, pricing, and institutional differences.

Research questions

  • How do acceptance rates differ across institution types (public vs. private nonprofit vs. private for-profit)?
  • What is the relationship between selectivity and tuition?
  • How do cost patterns vary by institution type?

Data & Setup

Rows: 153 | Columns: 19 | Institutions: 153
Unit ID Institution Name City State ZIP Code Control Code Institution Type Acceptance Rate (0-1) Acceptance Rate (%) Undergraduate Enrollment In-State Tuition USD Out-of-State Tuition (USD) Total Cost of Attendance USD Total Program Cost (USD) SAT Verbal Midpoint SAT Math Midpoint ACT Composite Midpoint Locale Code Region Code
0 108852 American Academy of Dramatic Arts-Los Angeles Los Angeles CA 90028 2 Private nonprofit 0.8968 89.68 169.0 39475.0 39475.0 55265.0 NaN NaN NaN NaN 11.0 8
1 108861 Berkeley School of Theology Berkeley CA 94704-3029 2 Private nonprofit 0.6296 62.96 28.0 2896.0 2896.0 61564.0 NaN NaN NaN NaN 12.0 8
2 109651 Art Center College of Design Pasadena CA 91103 2 Private nonprofit 0.7498 74.98 2054.0 51640.0 51640.0 71652.0 NaN NaN NaN NaN 12.0 8
3 109785 Azusa Pacific University Azusa CA 91702-7000 2 Private nonprofit 0.7948 79.48 2977.0 43600.0 43600.0 54735.0 NaN 561.0 556.0 22.0 21.0 8
4 110097 Biola University La Mirada CA 90639-0001 2 Private nonprofit 0.6008 60.08 3390.0 46704.0 46704.0 58430.0 NaN 626.0 600.0 26.0 21.0 8 
Missing values analysis:
missing_values pct
Total Program Cost (USD) 141 92.16
ACT Composite Midpoint 122 79.74
SAT Math Midpoint 120 78.43
SAT Verbal Midpoint 120 78.43
Locale Code 9 5.88

Findings

Finding 1: Acceptance rates differ by institution type

Interpretation: This chart compares average accessibility across governance models. Public institutions often have a broader-access mission, while private nonprofit institutions can be more selective.

—

Finding 2: Selectivity and tuition show a negative relationship

Correlation (Pearson r): -0.20 | p-value: 0.0118
Sample size: 153 institutions

Interpretation: More selective institutions tend to charge higher tuition, though the relationship is not perfect-many public institutions cluster at lower tuition levels regardless of acceptance rate.

—

Finding 3: Total cost differs substantially by institution type

Cost statistics by institution type:

Private nonprofit:
  Count: 84
  Median: $61,564
  Mean: $60,658
  Range: $14,780 – $85,202

Public:
  Count: 38
  Median: $24,998
  Mean: $26,310
  Range: $15,449 – $42,708

Private for-profit:
  Count: 31
  Median: $41,795
  Mean: $41,234
  Range: $16,789 – $57,642

Interpretation: Private nonprofit institutions often show higher median and wider variability in total cost; public institutions generally cluster at lower total cost.

—

Finding 4: Correlations among key numeric variables

Available numeric columns for correlation (top 7 by completeness): ['Acceptance Rate (0-1)', 'Acceptance Rate (%)', 'Undergraduate Enrollment', 'In-State Tuition USD', 'Out-of-State Tuition (USD)', 'Total Cost of Attendance USD', 'Locale Code']

Interpretation: Tuition and total cost are strongly related, while test-score fields may be missing for many institutions, which can affect correlations.

—

Finding 5: Most vs least selective institutions

TOP 10 MOST SELECTIVE INSTITUTIONS (Lowest Acceptance Rates):
Institution Name Institution Type Acceptance Rate (%) In-State Tuition USD
10 Alliant International University-San Diego Private for-profit 0.00 13918.0
144 Alliant International University-Fresno Private for-profit 0.00 24575.0
145 Alliant International University-Los Angeles Private for-profit 0.00 24575.0
146 Alliant International University-San Francisco... Private for-profit 0.00 24575.0
147 Alliant International University-Irvine Private for-profit 0.00 24575.0
148 Alliant International University-Sacramento Private for-profit 0.00 24575.0
7 California Institute of Technology Private nonprofit 3.14 63255.0
124 Minerva University Private nonprofit 3.55 18700.0
100 Stanford University Private nonprofit 3.91 62484.0
73 Pomona College Private nonprofit 6.76 62326.0 

TOP 10 LEAST SELECTIVE INSTITUTIONS (Highest Acceptance Rates):
Institution Name Institution Type Acceptance Rate (%) In-State Tuition USD
60 Newschool of Architecture and Design Private for-profit 100.0 30291.0
67 Pacific States University Private nonprofit 100.0 9810.0
84 Shasta Bible College and Graduate School Private nonprofit 100.0 14535.0
107 American University of Health Sciences Private for-profit 100.0 24575.0
115 University of the West Private nonprofit 100.0 14718.0
121 Brand College Private for-profit 100.0 24575.0
125 California Jazz Conservatory Private nonprofit 100.0 23700.0
133 The Chicago School at San Diego Private nonprofit 100.0 20844.0
137 Young Americans College of the Performing Arts Private nonprofit 100.0 14030.0
143 Arizona College of Nursing-Ontario Private for-profit 100.0 30133.0 

SUMMARY:
Most selective: 0.0% acceptance rate
Least selective: 100.0% acceptance rate
Median acceptance rate overall: 68.2%

Interpretation. Looking at extremes can reveal specialized schools (high acceptance) and elite institutions (low acceptance), which helps contextualize averages.

—

Interactive Exploration

If you view this report as HTML, the Plotly chart below supports hover and zoom.

Executive Summary Table

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BY INSTITUTION TYPE:
Institution Type Institution Count Avg Acceptance Rate Percent Median Tuition USD Median Total Cost USD Avg Enrollment Min Acceptance Rate Percent Max Acceptance Rate Percent
0 Private for-profit 31 58.5 24575 41795 510 0.0 100.0
1 Private nonprofit 84 60.8 42470 61564 1918 3.1 100.0
2 Public 38 65.5 7741 24998 17307 8.7 98.8

Methodology

  • Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), filtered to California institutions.
  • Cleaning: Basic type checks, inspection of missingness, and descriptive summaries.
  • Visualization principles: Emphasis on clarity and comparison; avoid unnecessary chart junk.

Limitations

  • Some institutions have substantial missingness (especially SAT/ACT fields).
  • Cross-sectional snapshot (single period): does not capture trends over time.
  • Some variables may be self-reported by institutions. titutions.

Conclusion

This analysis suggests a consistent pattern in California higher education: selectivity and cost often move together, while public institutions tend to deliver broader access at lower tuition. The combination of static and interactive visualizations demonstrates how online reporting can make complex institutional patterns easier to explore and communicate.

—

Appendix: Reproducibility Notes

  1. Ensure college acceptance CA.csv is in the same folder as this .qmd.
  2. Install required packages if needed:
pip install pandas numpy matplotlib scipy plotly

In terminal:

quarto render Report.qmd

The output will be Report.html.